Noah's ark

The thing u wrote abt noah's ark is not quite true, although i understand where you are coming from. now don't get me mixed up as being a believer, im actually a proud atheist. noah did exist, although he was just like any other person in pre-biblical times and was just like n e other person today, a sentient being from a species that evolved over time, etc. scientists recently discovered however that the med. sea was actually a large plain in that time, and there was a great wall/ land bridge across gibralter. also at this time a great earthquake broke the land barrier at giblralter causing the atlantic ocean to pour in to the low lying plain. this is where the great "flood" came from, not a mandate from god. of course, as explanation at the time, the only logical thing since science was not evolved was some great being, god. passed down by word of mouth, as things were in those days, the story obviously got twisted to the point where it is in the bible today. from a flood of that magnitude, other land area such as the mountains of arat were covered with water or nearly covered, being the place where noah's ark is thought to be resting in a glacier. therefore, the existance of noah does not prove the existence of god in any way, only that science once again proved religion wrong, being that religion in that time was simply a primative science which sought to explain things. more misconceptions about the red sea crossing of moses as well...

johnmcdonagh

We have to be begin to understand we are locked behind our senses. That is our senses or collectively our consciousness is limited, but not confined.How do we know? How do we know we know…the answer is we don’t but relative to what we did know and some objective evidence we judge something right or wrong (This I call marginal sense use). Take the study of most scientific endeavours and you shall find no end stage, no beginning with an end point, just more theory. The answer at this end is that we just don’t know.Imagination and science are attempts to go beyond the senses in order to provide possible clues/answers to hard or paradoxical questions. It has to be understood that paradox signals the limit of human consciousness at this point in time. To go beyond paradox requires an understanding of consciousness and a willingness to increase the developmental evolution of consciousness. Questions such as god, infinity, good and evil could be to us what a human being is to a bacterium. The consciousness distance between being able to know that you have a question and what that question is may have a dimensional context that our consciousness has not reached.The feeble attempts to answer questions such as ‘Why are free market mechanisms not perfect’ betray themselves as questions beyond our evolutional dimensional consciousness. This is also the problem for A.I. ‘Why won’t the thing think for us if we give it enough information?’ We can go on collecting knowledge but if we are not conscious of why we collect knowledge or by attempting to answer these questions with reference to the big questions – paradoxes, we are effectively citing knowledge as the precursor to greater consciousness; It is this that I disagree with for if I don’t see what I know then I am blind! If greater consciousness begets greater knowledge then perhaps then the big questions will yield; but the paradox of consciousness and knowledge is the paradox of the chicken and the egg.An example might elucidate this idea. A foetus must have written within it’s DNA an algorithm either for consciousness leading to learning or learning leading to consciousness. What comes first? Perhaps knowledge has blinded us to the pursuit of consciousness and that more attention to consciousness is in order, yes, yes I know this is also the pursuit of knowledge.

Suffering

Everybody thinks God can't existence because there is evil and what not, but good can't existence because you can't claim something is good without something being evil and pain, its the idea of Yin and Yang, its all about balance.

Re: Suffering

Good and evil, right and wrong, yin and yang do not exist. They are merely subjective constructions of mankind. What an arrogant species, to believe that the universe abides by the illusionary dictates of one of it's smallest components.

Does God exist

Arguments will not make God exist nor not-exist. Either there is a God or there isn't so all your arguments are just games. If there is no God then it's best to find some more useful pursuit (such as long walks). If there is a God so what? Does he/she really want us to worship ? What for ? Do you think worship will save your soul ! I suspect that if God exists then she/he would rather see you going on long walks!

Re: Does God exist, site out of context

I really don't think this website nor many of its respondants engage in actual deep research to try and support their vague assumptions/ "games." It's amazing I have read several articles and have not seen one quote from the bible through your so seemed logical conclusions about how God exists. And for the "does god exist" post, God is not a he/she becaue if you're going to refer to god at all at least get the jist of it all correct. Also God does not want you to worship him, he wants you to "love him" as you should learn to love everyone else in this world. You would then possibly come to worship him but that kind of reasoning is something I see all over this website, TAKING THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT. REad and learn my friends, ps on a logical note: since/if the existence of God "couldn't be proven" your following options are : A live a life God calls you to and have a wonderful eternal reward in heaven, B don't live your 80 or so years how God calls you to live and spend eternity in Hell, C live a great life God would have called you to and nothing happens, or D live ur 80 years that God didn't call u to live and nothing happens. Logically your chances are best with living the life God has called you to live, but how could you love God just being drawn in by simple logic? well there's no such thing as love at first sight, read!

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/theodicy_absence.html

"The professor of a university challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?" A student answered bravely, "Yes, he did".

The professor then asked, "If God created everything, then he created evil. Since evil exists (as noticed by our own actions), so God is evil. The student couldn't respond to that statement causing the professor to conclude that he had "proved" that "belief in God" was a fairy tale, and therefore worthless.

Another student raised his hand and asked the professor, "May I pose a question? " "Of course" answered the professor. The young student stood up and asked : "Professor does Cold exists?" The professor answered, "What kind of question is that?...Of course the cold exists... haven't you ever been cold?" The young student answered, "In fact sir, Cold does not exist. According to the laws of Physics, what we consider cold, in fact is the absence of heat. Anything is able to be studied as long as it transmits energy (heat). Absolute Zero is the total absence of heat, but cold does not exist. What we have done is create a term to describe how we feel if we don't have body heat or we are not hot." "And, does Dark exist?", he continued. The professor answered "Of course". This time the student responded, "Again you're wrong,Sir. Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in fact simply the absence of light. Light can be studied, darkness can not. Darkness cannot be broken down. A simple ray of light tears the darkness and illuminates the surface where the! light beam finishes. Dark is a term that we humans have created to describe what happens when there's lack of light." Finally, the student asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?" The professor replied, "Of course it exists, as I mentioned at the beginning, we see violations, crimes and violence anywhere in the world, and those things are evil."

The student responded, "Sir, Evil does not exist. Just as in the previous cases, Evil is a term which man has created to describe the result of the absence of God's presence in the hearts of man.

After this, the professor bowed down his head, and didn't answer back.

The young man's name was ALBERT EINSTEIN."

Was it truely einstein or not? What does that matter? Whomever the student was is irrelavant. What matters is that, the student is 100% correct in every word he spoke to the teacher. Take off the last sentenece in this conversation, and the arguement of the student could have been anyone.

Re: http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/theodicy_absence.html

Absence of God? But God is all-powerful and omnipresent, everywhere. If God isn't somewhere, it is because God chooses not to be there. Even if someone was foolish enough to choose to renounce all good, God needn't create EVIL, just neutrality. But that's not how it is: God has reasons for creating evil and suffering BEYOND those of free will. What are those reasons? It is because God isn't all-good. Simple!

re: good and evil ?

If there can be no sound (as we know it) without ears and eardrums anywhere on earth to hear it, is there still sound? Would there be light and color without eyes and optical nerves to see it or would all be total darkness? If so then why wouldn't it follow that there can be no evil or good (as we know it) without human minds to interpret what is good and what is evil? Animals can see and hear and feel but don't seem concerned about good and evil. IMHO good and evil are not absolutes and what is good and what is evil is determined only through the logic and/or the emotions of the beholder.

Re: re: good and evil ?

1) Sound and light are both waves; they are a sequence of real physical events. Information can be gained about them using various techniques - eyes aren't necessary to know about light, and ears aren't necessary to know sound. Likewise, God can make us know about things without us experiencing them directly. All animals including us have instinctive behaviours, feelings and knowledges about the world.

These things exist, and remain to be physical, real events that have effects on the universe, whether or not there are human minds to witness them.

Good and evil, however, are largely homocentric designs that are relevent only to us. For example, disease may be an evil of the world to us, but for bacteria our methods of disease reduction (antibiotics etc), are evil to them. Species suffer and experience subjective evil whether or not Humans are around to witness it.

I'm just curious how you can call God evil. In order for there to be a standard of good and evil that humankind can appeal to, there has to be something superhuman that draws the line between "right" and "wrong." I don't see how that standard can come from anyone other than a supreme being or god, in which case to call him evil is to say that the he is contrary to the very standard that he made or, more truely, is.

The existence of such large quantities of suffering, despair, pain, of natural disasters such as earthquakes, of the death of the unborn and the immense suffering of lovers & kind-hearted people means that god is evil and intentionally creates life in order to create suffering. That all life exists in a food chain means that life is completely tied to death, and such a barbaric biological cycle could only have been made by an evil god. Also, that such a god appears not to exist, or actively hides itself, is a source of confusion, conflict, war and stress and is again more likely the antics of an evil god. Given the state of the natural world, it is impossible that a good god exists. It is more likely that an evil god exists, but, it is sensible to assume that there is no god of either type.

If God did exist and was evil, it would undoubtedly lie and tell everyone it was a good god and that it loved them. It would create maximum confusion by preaching multiple conflicting religions. It would create heaven and make it hard to get to in order to tease and torture people into making their own lives hell. As all of those things happen, if there is a God, it is doing the things an evil God would do!

Hey Vexen

Re: Hey Vexen

I don't believe in Lamarkian theory of Evolution (which has been proven to be 99% wrong), but I do believe in Darwinian theory of Evolution. Darwinian evolution has has mountains of supporting evidence, and is as much as a fact as the theory of gravity.

Which theory of evolution did you mean when you asked if I believe in it?

God

God DOES exist. If he doesn't how did we (people) become? God created us. He doesn't LET bad things happen, though we probably deserve them because we're ungrateful, but He's just there to catch us when we fall. Have you ever boughten a Bible and really read it? I can and will go through the Bible and point out so many great things He has done. First He made the Heavens and the earth, light, darkness, water, clouds, land, plants, animals, you name it either He created it or He created people that created it. If it wasn't God that created everything WHO created it. Jesus was born the the virgin Mary. Magi (Kings) knew that He was coming. Even the stars obeyed Him, they went up above Him when He was being born. (This is all in Mathew, Mark, Luke, or John, books of the Bible) He heals the sick, He loves everyone and forgives them, He healed the man with leprosy, He calms the sea, you can't tell me one thing that isn't His will. 9/11, sure it was horrible but because of that people are believing in Him, Because of 9/11 those innocent CHRISTIANS that died went to Heaven. He died on the cross so we wouldn't have to. 3 nails (in his feet and hands) + 1 cross = forgiven He forgives you and loves you even though you don't love him. There was once a college proffessor who stood up infront of his class and said "God if you can knock me down I know you exist." Five minutes and nothing had happened, just like it never did. Then an ex-soldier who was a Christian came and knocked him off. The professor asked why he did that. He replied, "Because God is protecting our soldiers right now, so He sent me!" Another proffessor at UCLU said, as he had for 20 years. "Is anyone a Christian?" nobody, even if they were said nothing, because they knew he was going to say you fool! after that. One day a Christian raised his hand. "You Fool!" the proffessor yelled. "If I drop this piece of chalk, if it doesn't break then I will believe in Him." He dropped the chalk, it rolled down his leg, onto his foot and rolled on the floor unbroken, he knew He was real so he ran out, ashamed. Think about it.

Re: God

By the way, I'm a THIRTEEN YEAR OLD and yet I AM RIGHT. You are a forty year old (just guessing) and yet YOU ARE WRONG. If you REALLY don't believe there isn't a God then why do you bother fighting with us Christians? If you know you're "right" then why would you fight, unless you are doubting yourself and know you're wrong. You know it, we know it, so just admit it, YOU'RE WRONG!!!! I wrote earlier one.

Re: Problem of Evil

I find it very interesting that in many of your writings, you throw in the conclusion (many times with no basis) that god does not exist. As I understand it you believe no god exists. Yet, all of your arguments presuppose the existence of an evil god, and you do have some decent arguments for the existence of an evil god. Yet, I have not seen a legitimate argument for why god does not exist.

Obviously it is a possibility, either god exists or god does not exist. The problem I have is that this is not what you are arguing. You are arguing whether god is good or evil, assuming god is real for the sake of the argument. Ending that argument about god being good or evil with a statement like, “…either God is evil or does not exist.” makes no sense. If you want to qualify what you have actually concluded you should say something like “if god does exist, god is evil.”

I think you jump ahead of many of your arguments. Jumping ahead makes me question your credibility. Now, you may not care if some random person thinks you lack credibility, but credibility is key in a philosophical debate. If you really want to change people’s way of thinking, you must convince them you are correct for the correct reasons.

The conclusion "God does not exist" is a valid one that would solve whatever theological dilemma I am discussing on the page. At some point, when enough of the complications that result from god's existence are highlighted, occam's razor should come into play and the more simpler theory, that there is no god, appears to be correct.

Problem of Evil...for Atheists

The problem of evil is actually more of a problem for atheists than it is for Christians. Consider the following argument: We know via a priori knowledge that evil exists, as well as good. There is no denying that; it's the point of this whole topic of conversation. But here's the deal: If evil and good, right and wrong, etc. actually exist in this world, that means there is some sort of universal morality that causes this to be so. If there is a universal morality, there must be some universal entity from which said morality came...thus proving the existence of God.

What's interesting is that all atheists will instinctively recognize that this argument is deductively valid, so they must immediately attack its formal validity. (It differs from the Kalam cosmological argument primarily because of the a priori nature of the first premise). The way you do this is to appeal to subjective morality, effectively stating that "all things just are...there's no universal right or wrong, good and evil, etc. Individuals and groups of people just have opinions about it." Well, atheists, if good and evil really amount to no more than subjective opinions, then according to you, evil does not objectively, univerally, or actually exist. If we leave it at that, the problem of evil argument (for Christians) goes away rather easily.

But I won't leave it at that. I think it's pretty obvious from a priori intuition- the kind where you "lay on the couch" and just think about it- that evil actually does exist, and ironically, I have hundreds of atheists commenting ahead of me in support of this. For an atheist, this is devastating. In order to even consider any type of "problem of evil," you must first presuppose the existence of God. If you are to apply the problem of evil to Christians, the atheist has already lost...and in any case, it's not a problem that questions the existence of God; rather, it questions his nature. Remember that acknowledging the very existence of evil assumes the existence of God. Consider the following: Is God willing but not able to prevent evil? How about unwilling, though able? Perhaps unwilling and unable? How about both willing and able? (Then whence cometh evil?) All this does is question God's nature, and in the process- not just so we can talk about God, but also because evil certainly exists- we must presuppose the existence of God, just as much as the existence of evil.

Once more, in summary: The very existence of evil presupposes the existence of God. It's really a pretty huge problem for atheists. As it applies to Christians, we just have to deal with God's nature rather than question his existence, as this is already proven by the existence of evil. Now somebody deal with that little conundrum. If you do, please put real effort into it and don't just make a short annoying comment with a weak underdeveloped argument. Thank you!

Re: Problem of Evil...for Atheists

There really is no good and evil. Disease, death, natural disasters and all the suffering that results from it is only arbitrarily defined as 'evil' by ourselves, there is no 'evil' inherent in the physical laws of geology that result in earthquakes, and no 'evil' in the facts of chemistry that accidentally cause cancers. They are naturally occurin parts of physical reality, and proceed completely without moral considerations. We only call things "evil" or "good" out of convention.

"What is good for one being is frequently bad for another. For example in nature the whole cycle of biological life is based on death and recycling. [...]. All predators find it good that prey is available; if you protect the prey you harm the predators, and whilst it is bad from the prey's point of view to be eaten, it is necessary from the predators point of view. In nature, natural survival is violent and competitive.

Bacteria1 feed on biological chemicals to survive and breed. What is good for them is bad for us. While antibiotics are good for us and reduce our suffering, their usage create suffering and death for countless other minor species. What is good for one species is bad for others. While one culture may consider multiple marriage to be a virtue of love and positivity, another considers it an evil sin. What is good in one culture is bad in another. What was good in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible is bad in the New, what is good in the Buddhist Pali scriptures is wrong in the Therevada, what is considered an ethic by one group in society is considered wrong in another. What the homeless rightly do to survive is a "social evil" to those with homes, and how governments collect tax is evil to the poor person but a social necessity. Good and Evil are impossibly complex, inherently subjectivist. There are no actions that are good for everyone, and there are no actions that are bad for all species."

You explicitly depend on "a priori intuition", but, what you consider 'intuition' is just simplification and illusion. That is no basis for the grand conclusions that you make.

(2) Even if good and evil existed, it wouldn't imply the existence of a good god.

(F1) It is no good relying on 'instincts' as evidence to turn a subjective opinion into an objective dualism.

(F2) It is no good to claim that a good god is the only valid cause of the dualism of F1, without proving first that god exists, and that good and evil have a basis in fact external to the human mind (F1).

So, your requirements to backup your arguments are:

R1: You need evidence that good and evil are absolute and objective. Try citing some examples - I bet every one you can think of it subjective. You only need to come up with one example to win this argument in principal, so I'm sure you'll consider this easy.

R2: Prove that good and evil require the existence of god (that it is therefore distinct from other opposites that exist (apparently) without the need for god.

R3: Prove that God (the explanation for R2 and R1) itself exists. It is no good saying that F2 implies this, when F2 itself remains unproven (it is a therefore circular argument, with no proof for either part).

your logic at the beginning is kind of simple, but i agree with what you're saying. If you espand on that and go a little deeper, then the doubters (or should they be called believers?) will be silenced. good job though

Good and Evil

Just wanted to point out some things that seemed to overlooked in most of these posts.1) God is both good and evil. God is all things, both the very best and the very worst of man. We were, after all, created in his image.

2) Free will was not just something God gave to man. Lucifer was God's second in command until he chose to challenge God for the throne of Heaven.

3) In almost all of the posts I see God being blamed for the evil in the world. Have we forgotten Satan? Satan whispers 'live how ever you see fit.' 'If you want, take. If someone opposes you destroy them. If you don't agree, disobey.' God did not create evil, evil was born of the disobedience of Satan. Since God and the angles were begotten of eternity you simply cannot say God "created" evil. God created the earth and in it he put man. Some men choose to follow God, some choose to follow Satan. All the suffering and turmoil in the world can be traced back those who follow Satan. And before you go saying one man's evil is another man's good, stop and think for a minute. Look into your secret heart and you will know what is good and what is evil. Would you say that raping a newborn child is anything but evil? Would you say saving the life of someone in need is anything but good?

4) As to pain and suffering. This is probably God's most brilliant piece of work. Without them what have you got? I'll tell you what you don't have. Hope. If your life was perfect every day what would you have to look forward to? Nothing. Your everyday would be the same as the last. You would grow bored, complacent and lazy. After you've seen and done it all your life would cease to have meaning. Without the lows you would have no highs. What you call God being evil is actually the petulant little child in you screaming "I want it MY way"! I got news for you, this ain't Burger King Sweetheart!

Lastly, I would just like to point out that if everyone did what ever they wanted with out any moral concern(since there is no such thing as good and evil), I'd be willing to bet that about 99% of the people that posted here wouldn't live long, including the host.

Re: Good and Evil

I respect your beliefs. We all need something to believe in because without that, we have no hope. I can certainly understand your post, what I dont get is this:

your Bible says Thou shalt not judge. So, why on earth would you follow up such a good response with "Lastly, I would just like to point out that if everyone did what ever they wanted with out any moral concern(since there is no such thing as good and evil), I'd be willing to bet that about 99% of the people that posted here wouldn't live long, including the host." Why in the world would you stoop to such a level? and who are you to make such an outrageous claim? If your God is the only judge, then how do you think He would feel about your blatant condemnation of these people whose beliefs differ from yours?

I greatly respect Christianity and all of its beliefs, I dont necessarily respect Christians. Not to say I dont respect ANY of them, i do but, generally speaking. It has been my experience that with nearly every christian i have ever known that they are very close minded. Also, some (not all) tend to twist the christian philosophy to use it to their own personal advantage, to suit their PERSONAL needs, wants, and desires. I dont think that this is what God intended. Of course that is just my opinion.

problem of evil

I want to put a question to those who claim that an all-powerful, all-knowing, and wholly benevolent deity exists: How did they come to know that this deity is all-powerful, all-knowing, and wholly benevolent? Or, was it all nothing but their imagination? Will they please describe to us in detail by which means they came to know absolutely certainly what attributes this deity did actually have? Did they possess some supernatural power that common people does not normally possess? Or, were they also all-knowing like the deity they believe in?

Your question of, Why would a good god create suffering?

A "good god" would create suffering because if the only thing that a person knows is good, they have no sense of recognition for the things that are bad or unjust. no one is perfect, Every person in the world has made a mistake at some point in there lives.

Re: Your question of, Why would a good god create suffering?

(1) It is not necessary that evil has to exist in order to be good. I am sure you believe that God has existed for all time and that God has always been good. Therefore, evil is not required for goodness.

(2) I didn't say that everyone has to be perfect; just that God could have made it so that the only things that exist are varying degrees of goodness. People would have free will to choose between these different good paths, and, no evil would exist.

A Thorough Response to the Problem of Evil

In the philosophy of religion ‘natural atheology’ is defined as the branch of philosophy that attempts to prove the central beliefs of theists (people who believe in a God) as false. One of the most impressive and strongest arguments of natural atheology is to do with the problem of evil.

The problem of evil claims that it is unbelievable, if an omnipotent and good God exists, that he would permit so much pain and suffering in the world. The famous philosopher David Hume in his ‘Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion’ aptly puts it,

“Epicurus’s old questions are yet unanswered. Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?”

The problem of evil is without a doubt one of the key intellectual obstacles that a Muslim or theist has to overcome in order to be convinced that God exists (or convince others for that matter). There are two versions of the problem of evil, the internal problem of evil and the external problem of evil.

The internal problem of evil is presented as an argument whose premises the Muslim is committed to due to his belief in Islam. The external problem of evil is presented as an argument whose premises the Muslim is not committed to but can have good reasons to believe the premises to be true.

Re: A Thorough Response to the Problem of Evil

H. J. McCloskey in his article ‘God and Evil’ summarizes the problem well,

“Evil is a problem for the theist in that a contradiction is involved in the fact of evil, on the one hand, and the belief in the omnipotence and perfection of God on the other.”[3]

Responding to the Internal Problem of Evil

The first point that needs to be made is that statements (1) and (2) are not logically inconsistent as there is no apparent contradiction. For the atheist to jump to the conclusion that a good God that is omnipotent doesn’t exist is an unwarranted, unless he has assumed, in the words of Philosopher William Craig, “some hidden premises”.

These hidden premises seem to be the following,

4. If God is omnipotent, then he can create any world he wants

5. If God is good, then he prefers a world without evil

Statement (4) suggests that since God can create and do anything, then he can create free human beings who always decide to do the right thing and do not fall into evil or suffering. Statement (5) suggests that God is all good so much so that if he could create a world without evil and suffering he would. Otherwise he would himself be evil to prefer that humans experience evil and suffering.

The proponent of this version of the problem of evil has made some unjustified assumptions. These hidden premises make some daring assumptions; firstly it assumes a Christian type of God, one that is just good and omnipotent. Secondly it assumes that God doesn’t have any reasons to permit evil and suffering in the world.

Definition of Evil.

Pretty shallow way to look at it.God created everything including Lucipher.Before he became envious if the holy trinity there was no sin on earth.Only when he was cast down with a portion of angels did sin enter earth.

A subset can not explain the primary set.The fact that you can only see the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum should serve you as enough evidence that there are many other frequencies out there that u can neither see no hear.